President Obama talks a lot about the scientific method. On climate change, he has often invoked the idea of a great divide between those on the progressive left, such as himself, who believe in “settled science” and thus a looming man-caused climatological disaster, and those, presumably on the Neanderthal Right, who are slaves to superstition, ideology, prejudice, and self-interest—and thus deny that the planet is rapidly warming due to inordinate human-induced releases of excessive carbon.

Obama’s view of science is reductionist. It relies on count-em-up numbers: if more university professors (not known to be an especially independent or courageous cohort) believe in dangerous man-caused climate change than doubt it or its seriousness, and if climate change fits a larger progressive agenda, then it becomes factual.

Would we assume thereby that Newton, Galileo, and Darwin were all exemplars of groupthink, and worked through consensus and collegiality, especially with the support of status-quo institutions and universities, in advancing majority-held theories?

When Obama signed legislation in his first weeks in office enabling human stem cell research, he pontificated that his act was about ensuring “that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.” Aside from the fact that there were and are methodologies of harvesting stem cells without resort to embryonic protocols, the president’s entire approach to science, data, and the inductive method is to privilege ideology and subordinate facts.

In short, Obama is the most anti-science, anti-factual president in modern memory.

The president has warned the nation, usually on the most inappropriate and untimely occasions, of the American tendency to succumb to Islamophobia. But to support such an assumed pathology, the president adduced no evidence that Americans are more likely to target Muslims than other groups.

If we were to rely on “scientific” research, there is statistical evidence that in general hate crimes in the U.S. are rare, and that in particular they tend to focus on Jews. The most recent survey (2014) of the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program shows 58% of hate crimes were directed at Jews, while just 16% were against Muslims. Thus, if the president felt that there was a real danger of American citizens or residents harming others due to their religions, then obviously he would warn us not to attack Jews, who suffer more hate crimes than all other religious groups combined.

As a student of science, Obama should incorporate such findings in his pop editorializing and not, for example, sloppily characterize the deliberate sorting and murdering of four Jews in a Paris delicatessen as if it were a random attack on “a bunch of folks” (e.g., “violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris”).

If Obama really wished to address hate crimes in more precise scientific fashion, he would ask for data concerning not just the most likely group to suffer such attacks, but the most likely group statistically to commit them. But then again there is an anti-scientific resistance to investigating the matter further, given the likely results that would suggest an unwelcome reality.

The president also insists that the government in reaction to the San Bernardino terrorist attacks must now rush to make it illegal for anyone on the no-fly lists to buy guns. Is there any scientific evidence that such a move would have much effect in preventing or abating terrorism? Or is such a call based on folklore and ideologically driven superstition?

Over 800,000 are on the terrorist watch list, and about 64,000 of them are additionally on the no-fly list. Aside from the facts that both lists grow and do not seem to shrink, and that reasons are not always provided for adding names to the lists, there is no evidence that those included in the past on the no-fly list so far have been the perpetrators of post-9/11 terrorist attacks. Banning guns to those on a no-fly list may in theory be wise, but there is no scientific evidence to suggest that it would be. If one were to consult other various lists of the major terrorist operations in the U.S. since 9/11—and they range in number from 50-60 depending on the criteria used—the vast majority were committed by those who self-identified as acting on behalf of Islam.

In rejecting the Keystone pipeline, the president ignored the scientific conclusions of his own State Department’s body of expert consultants who found no major negative impact to the climate by building the pipeline. In fact, statistically it is likely far less deleterious to the environment to ship oil-sand products by pipeline through the United States than to transport it by existing rail and truck. The Keystone cancellation was emblematic of making scientific decisions based on ideology, not facts.

NASA, as its name implies, by all accounts is a scientific government agency devoted to the exploration of the upper atmosphere and space. Its mission is not, as its Director Charles Bolden understood his mandate from President Obama, a sociological one: “And third, and perhaps foremost, (emphasis added) he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math and engineering.” Once the U.S. again has its own rockets, such outreach may be a nice thing to do. But “feel good” is not the “foremost” mission of that government scientific organization. Envision the next present promising to use NASA to ensure that Christian nations “feel good” about past Christian “contributions to science, math, and engineering.” Almost instantaneously we would hear—and rightly so—charges leveled against an anti-science president subverting for ideological purposes and a “political agenda” an historic government scientific enterprise.

Most climatologists do not connect the California drought with global warming. To the degree that we can ascertain a cause, given the paucity of weather-related data in California dating much before 1850, scientists point to the El Niño effect. Slight changes in east-central Pacific Ocean temperatures have historically affected the formation and trajectories of West Coast storms. To the degree temperature per se is the culprit, our present drought is largely a result of oceanic temperatures being too cool—in other words, too little of an El Niño effect.

Yet Obama flew into the Central Valley of California, Ground Zero of the drought, pronounced climate change the culprit, promised federal monies for that purpose, and flew out. Aside from politicizing a natural disaster for contemporary political advantage, anti-science also plays a role in the drought. Activists and government officials, state and federal, did not calibrate rising state population with increased needs for water storage and transfers.

Instead, in an ideological and anti-science frenzy, they suspended completing the California Water Project and Central Valley Project infrastructure, and embraced romantic but unproven theories about diverting contracted irrigation water to reintroduce salmon to the San Joaquin River and to restore delta smelt populations to assumed normal levels. Both anti-scientific efforts failed to increase those populations, but only after the wastage of several million acre-feet of precious water. Releasing scarce storage water in a drought—contrary to the initial aims of the Central Valley and California Water Projects of flood control, irrigation, recreation, and power generation—on the theory of altering fish populations is about as anti-scientific and anti-human as one can get.

If one were to characterize the Obama administration approach to the natural world, it is precisely an historical effort to privilege ideology over facts. In matters of gun control, Obama ignores how, where, and why most Americans are killed by guns because the facts do not fit a preconceived narrative. In matters of the Affordable Care Act, the administration made unscientific claims about affordability, budgetary consequences, coverage, and access that were quickly proven contrary to available evidence.

In reaction to the Benghazi killings, the Obama team advanced a narrative about a right-wing video maker prompting such “spontaneous” violence that contradicted eyewitness accounts, forensic evidence, and the social media testimonies of the attackers and the reports of the attacked. Then there is the matter of racial violence such as Michael Brown’s death in Ferguson. The president evoked it as an example of police excess, even though his own Justice Department found no culpability on the part of the officer in question and the narrative of an innocent victim crying out "hands up, don’t shoot" to be an entire fabrication. For political and ideological purposes, the Obama Justice Department supports flawed studies theorizing that one in four females on campus will be a victim of sexual violence during her college years—a theory debunked by facts as often as it is resurrected for its electoral utility.

Obama does not believe in science because science is blind. In today’s political climate, disinterested inquiry is a mortal sin. We live in an age in which aims that are declared socially just require any means necessary to achieve them—even if that ensures a denial of the scientific method and facts themselves.

Friday, November 20, 2015

Police on the campus of a taxpayer-funded university in central Michigan have arrested a man for posting a threat against black people on Yik Yak, the anonymous social media app.
The threat declared: “I’m going to shoot every black person I can on campus. Starting tomorrow morning.”
The man who police arrested, Emmanuel D. Bowden, is black.
He had lived in Saginaw Valley State housing and is — or was — a student at Delta College, a public, two-year community college nearby, reports The Saginaw News.

Bowden, 21, faces a single charge of making a false report on a threat of terrorism. If convicted, he faces up to 20 years in prison.
Police say Bowden typed his fateful posting into Yik Yak at approximately midnight on Nov. 13 (a Friday).
Upon receiving highly negative feedback on the social media app, police say, Bowden backtracked with messages saying “I’m black” and “I was going to give it an hour to see how you all would react.”
Bowden’s poorly timed Yik Yak posting came on the night of last week’s Paris terror attacks and during a time when race issues on American college campuses have become especially sensitive.
Police actually arrested Bowden on a separate, unrelated warrant — apparently related to misuse of a credit card in a campus convenience store.
Bowden remains in jail in lieu of a $10,000 bond. His case comes before a judge in early December.
A Saginaw Valley State spokesman stressed that, of course, Bowden is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The FBI assisted with the investigation.
Prior to this incident, Saginaw Valley State was most famous because it was the public school that tried to censor campus posters saying “Fuck censorship.” (RELATED: ‘F*Ck Censorship’ Poster Rejected At State School)Follow Eric on Twitter. Like Eric on Facebook. Send education-related story tips to erico@dailycaller.com.

Obama’s distorted strategy

The president soothes anti-Western grievances at great cost

By James A. Lyons- - Thursday, November 19, 2015

While France remains in a state of shock over the ISIS terrorist attacks in Paris, they are also most likely confused and disappointed over President Obama’s declaration that there will be no fundamental change to his current policy and strategy to “now contain and defeat ISIS.” During his Nov. 12 remarks in Antalya, Turkey, Mr. Obama appeared to be petulant and arrogant when responding to legitimate reporter’s questions, perhaps a “crack” in the carefully constructed veneer that has concealed his true character and now has been exposed. However, on Nov. 17, The New York Times editorial board quickly came to the rescue by declaring that Mr. Obama “hit the right tone” in his remarks.

But his remarks should leave no doubt that he has a far-reaching strategy. That strategy is embedded in his declaration to fundamentally transform America. Actually, the way we are restricting our operations in the Middle East today has its roots in America’s transformation. Those who say the administration is incompetent — are wrong. With the complicity of our congressional leadership and the mainstream media, the administration has executed their strategy brilliantly.

In order to understand Mr. Obama’s strategy, you first have to understand the threat that has been deliberately distorted. When President Erdogan of Turkey was prime minister, he said it best —IslamisIslam. There are no modifiers, such as violent extremism. Democracy is the train we ride to achieve our ultimate objective, Mr. Erdogan implied, which is world domination. It must be understood that Islamis a political movement masquerading as a religion. The Islamic movement will seize power as soon as it is able.

No matter how many times “progressives” try to rationalize or accommodate perceived Muslim grievances, the fact remains thatIslam has been involved in a struggle for world domination for over 1,400 years. What the world witnessed in Paris, and certainly here in America on Sept. 11, 2001, was a continuing clash of civilizations betweenIslamand the Judeo-Christian values of the West. As the noted historian Samuel P. Huntington implied,Islamis fundamentally incompatible with Western values and cultures. There can be no peace or co-existence between Islamand non-Islamic societies or their political institutions. Clearly, there must be a reformation ofIslam.

Once the Islamic threat has been exposed and understood, then any thinking American should be able to grasp Mr. Obama’s strategy. It is anti-American; anti-Western; but pro-Islamic; pro-Iranian; and pro-Muslim Brotherhood. This raises the question: Why would an American president with his country’s Judeo-Christian heritage, who professes to be a Christian, embraceIslam? Or for that matter, why would an American president embrace Iran, the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, which has been at war with the United States for over 35 years? They have caused the loss of thousands of American civilians and military lives.

Also, why would an American president embrace the Muslim Brotherhood, whose creed is to destroy America from within by our own miserable hands, and replace our Constitution with seventh century Shariah law? They have been able to penetrate all our national security and intelligence agencies. Consequently, they have had a major impact on our foreign and domestic policies as well as the way our military is restricted on fighting our wars.

It is not possible to list all of President Obama’s executive orders and policies that have imposed undue restraints on our military forces and first responders, but illustrative of those are the following:

• The unilateral disarmament of our military forces. This makes no sense when we are being challenged throughout the world.

• Compounding the unilateral disarmament issue is the social engineering that has been forced on our military to satisfy an ill-advised domestic agenda. It has adversely impacted the military’s moral fiber, unit cohesiveness, integrity and most importantly the “will to win.”

• The purging of all our military training manuals that linksIslamwith terrorism. Our forces are being denied key information that properly defines the threat.

• Emasculation of our military capabilities by imposing highly restricted Rules of Engagement. It makes our military look ineffective.

• Curtailment of Christianity and its symbols in our military, e.g., restricting the display of the Bible.

• Making our military forces in the Middle East either ignore or submit to the atrocities authorized by Shariah law, tribal customs and traditions, e.g. wife beating, stoning, sodomizing young boys.

• Unfettered immigration with open borders, plus seeding Muslim immigrants throughout the country.

• Shifting sides in the Global War on Terror by supporting al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood militias, and facilitating the removal of all vestiges of secular rulers who were in fact our allies in the war on terror.

When President Obama gave his June 4, 2009 speech at Cairo University, co-hosted by Al-Azhar University, the center of Sunni doctrine for over 1,000 years, he stated, “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear,” that said it all. Again, when he spoke at the U.N. on Sept. 25, 2012, after the Benghazi tragedy and stated that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” — case closed. Andy McCarthy, author and National Review columnist, made a compelling case for Mr. Obama’s impeachment in his book, “Faithless Execution.” Clearly, the president has exposed where he stands when the issue is Islam versus our Judeo-Christian heritage. Certainly, the case is there to be made for his removal from office for his illegal, unconstitutional and treasonous acts.

• James A. Lyons, a U.S. Navy retired admiral, was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.

Saturday, November 14, 2015

I believe that attachment to this email that I am forwarding to you is one of the most important of any sent so far. I received it from a close friend and Fox News Military analyst. I am actually aware of this phenomenon happening in Europe and it is both scary and very sobering. Simple math tells us that, if a married (heterosexual) American family has an average of 2 children and an Islamic Muslim family averages 7 children per family (no such thing as bigamy....the men can have several wives) they will surpass us population wise in a matter of decades. I am sure that most of you have seen these Muslim children, many brainwashed at at a very young age, declaring their allegiance to Allah and chanting, "Death to America!" During the chant many simulate beheading an "Infidel." Anyway, please take the 20 minutes for YOU AND YOURS to view the attached. If anyone says they are not interested, they had better get interested quickly. Time is not necessarily on our side. Please give this maximum distribution. God Bless.

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

MICHAEL SAVAGE NEWSLETTER:

In today’s issue: With millions of Muslims, including ISIS members, from the Middle East flooding the West, Dr. Savage asked his listeners a fundamentalquestion.

“Why would any country in the world accept Islamic migrants and commit suicide?”

He pointed to history, telling “The Savage Nation,” “let’s go to Lebanon” for a look at what the West should expect.

Lebanon was once a prosperous, predominantly Christian nation only 75 years ago. Did you know that it was called the Paris of the Middle East? It was a popular holiday spot. It was a commercial and banking center comparable to Switzerland. Lebanon.

Around 1950, Lebanon took in Islamic refugees from where? Syria! And other war-torn areas.

Once the PLO was defeated in Jordan — by Black September military in 1970, by the way — many Palestinian militants fled where? To Lebanon.

And what did this produce?

This led to increasing sectarian violence between Palestinians and the Maronites, the Lebanese Christians, and other Lebanese factions.

And what is Lebanon today as a result of the Muslim invasion? It’s hell on earth. A civil war among Christians, Sunnis and Shiites that began in 1975 and ran to 1990, still goes on today.

And one decade from now, 10 years from now, Germany as you know it will no longer exist.

Ten years from now the United Kingdom, under those — I have a word that I can’t use; it’s a family show — those sellouts, those quislings, those vermin who pretend to be leaders. Those rats! Those rats who run the West.

There will be no Germany, no U.K., no Sweden. You will see something that you will never believe, if you live another 10 years.

Here is my prediction. Wait until the Muslims gain a majority through their multiple breeding. Wait until the Muslims gain a majority and gain control of the military.

Then you look back and you say, “Who was that who was trying to warn us?”